Albino Kalolo1,2, Lara Gautier3, Ralf Radermacher4, Siddharth Srivastava5,6, Menoris Meshack7, Manuela De Allegri8. 1. Department of Public Health, St. Francis University College of Health and Allied Sciences, P.O. Box 175, Ifakara, Tanzania. kaloloa@gmail.com. 2. Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Medical Faculty and University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. kaloloa@gmail.com. 3. Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 4. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, 10/319, Mtendere Drive, Lilongwe, Malawi. 5. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, P.O. Box CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland. 6. University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, P. O. Box 4001, Basel, Switzerland. 7. Health Promotion and System Strengthening (HPSS) Project, P.O Box 29, Dodoma, Tanzania. 8. Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Medical Faculty and University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Micro-health insurance (MHI) has been identified as a possible interim solution to foster progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). Still, MHI schemes suffer from chronically low penetration rates, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Initiatives to promote and sustain enrolment have yielded limited effect, yet little effort has been channelled towards understanding how such initiatives are implemented. We aimed to fill this gap in knowledge by examining heterogeneity in implementation outcomes and their moderating factors within the context of the Redesigned Community Health Fund in the Dodoma region in Tanzania. METHODS: We adopted a mixed-methods design to examine implementation outcomes, defined as adoption and fidelity of implementation (FOI) as well as their moderating factors. A survey questionnaire collected individual level data and a document review checklist and in-depth interview guide collected district level data. We relied on descriptive statistics, a chi square test and thematic analysis to analyse our data. RESULTS: A review of district level data revealed high adoption (78%) and FOI (77%) supported also by qualitative interviews. In contrast, survey participants reported relatively low adoption (55%) and FOI (58%). Heterogeneity in adoption and FOI was observed across the districts and was attributed to organisational weakness or strengths, communication and facilitation strategies, resource availability (fiscal capacity, human resources and materials), reward systems, the number of stakeholders, leadership engagement, and implementer's skills. At an individual level, heterogeneity in adoption and FOI of scheme components was explained by the survey participant's level of education, occupation, years of stay in the district and duration of working in the scheme. For example, the adoption of job description was statistically associated with occupation (p = 0.001) and wworking in the scheme for more than 20 months had marginal significant association with FOI (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that assessing the implementation processes helps to detect implementation weaknesses and therefore address such weaknesses as the interventions are implemented or rolled out to other settings. Attention to contextual and individual implementer elements should be paid in advance to adjust implementation strategies and ensure greater adoption and fidelity of implementation.
INTRODUCTION: Micro-health insurance (MHI) has been identified as a possible interim solution to foster progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). Still, MHI schemes suffer from chronically low penetration rates, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Initiatives to promote and sustain enrolment have yielded limited effect, yet little effort has been channelled towards understanding how such initiatives are implemented. We aimed to fill this gap in knowledge by examining heterogeneity in implementation outcomes and their moderating factors within the context of the Redesigned Community Health Fund in the Dodoma region in Tanzania. METHODS: We adopted a mixed-methods design to examine implementation outcomes, defined as adoption and fidelity of implementation (FOI) as well as their moderating factors. A survey questionnaire collected individual level data and a document review checklist and in-depth interview guide collected district level data. We relied on descriptive statistics, a chi square test and thematic analysis to analyse our data. RESULTS: A review of district level data revealed high adoption (78%) and FOI (77%) supported also by qualitative interviews. In contrast, survey participants reported relatively low adoption (55%) and FOI (58%). Heterogeneity in adoption and FOI was observed across the districts and was attributed to organisational weakness or strengths, communication and facilitation strategies, resource availability (fiscal capacity, human resources and materials), reward systems, the number of stakeholders, leadership engagement, and implementer's skills. At an individual level, heterogeneity in adoption and FOI of scheme components was explained by the survey participant's level of education, occupation, years of stay in the district and duration of working in the scheme. For example, the adoption of job description was statistically associated with occupation (p = 0.001) and wworking in the scheme for more than 20 months had marginal significant association with FOI (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that assessing the implementation processes helps to detect implementation weaknesses and therefore address such weaknesses as the interventions are implemented or rolled out to other settings. Attention to contextual and individual implementer elements should be paid in advance to adjust implementation strategies and ensure greater adoption and fidelity of implementation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contextual factors; Implementation outcomes; Micro health insurance; Redesigned community health fund; Tanzania
Authors: Dennis Pérez; Patrick Van der Stuyft; Maríadel Carmen Zabala; Marta Castro; Pierre Lefèvre Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Etty R Nilsen; Janne Dugstad; Hilde Eide; Monika Knudsen Gullslett; Tom Eide Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Subhashini Ganesan; Latifa Mohammad Baynouna Al Ketbi; Nawal Al Kaabi; Mohammed Al Mansoori; Noura Nasser Al Maskari; Mariam Saif Al Shamsi; Aysha Saeed Alderei; Hamada Nasser El Eissaee; Rudina Mubarak Al Ketbi; Noura Saeed Al Shamsi; Khuloud Mohammed Saleh; Aysha Fahad Al Blooshi; Flavia Martinez Cantarutti; Katherine Warren; Faheem Ahamed; Walid Zaher Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Rassil Barada; Alina Potts; Angela Bourassa; Manuel Contreras-Urbina; Krystel Nasr Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Matthew Browne; Vijay Rawat; Catherine Tulloch; Cailem Murray-Boyle; Matthew Rockloff Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ali Haider Mohammed; Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan; Abdulrasool M Wayyes; Ansam Qassim Gadhban; Ali Blebil; Sara Abu Alhija; Rula M Darwish; Ahmed Talib Al-Zaabi; Gamil Othman; Ammar Ali Saleh Jaber; Betoul Ahmad Al Shouli; Juman Dujaili; Omar Abdulwahid Al-Ani; Fares Mohammed Saeed Muthanna Journal: Vaccine Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 4.169
Authors: Marcelo Benedeti Palermo; Lucas Micol Policarpo; Cristiano André da Costa; Rodrigo da Rosa Righi Journal: Netw Model Anal Health Inform Bioinform Date: 2022-10-11